(07:42:08PM)Thetopicfor#sconsis:SCons|buildingsoftware,better|http://www.scons.org|nextbugtriagepartyisTue2Mar201017h00US/Pacific(07:43:00PM)unlink[~unlink@unaffiliated/unlink]enteredtheroom.(07:53:29PM)Jason_at_Intel[~chatzilla@12.18.240.224]enteredtheroom.(07:53:53PM)Jason_at_Intel:Hello(07:54:14PM)loonycyborg:hi(07:55:03PM)garyo:Higuys(07:55:37PM)Jason_at_Intel:biglistofbugs(07:55:57PM)Jason_at_Intel:Istillcan't edit it :-((07:56:00 PM) garyo: yes, reminds me of the old days.(07:56:03 PM) garyo: :-((07:56:34 PM) Jason_at_Intel: well 1.3 is out(07:56:42 PM) garyo: jason: I used to have that problem too, not sure why it stopped happening for me. Did you follow the invite link on the BugParty/ReadWrite page?(07:56:55 PM) Jason_at_Intel: we are waiting for 2.0 and we plan to upgrade to that version at work(07:57:00 PM) garyo: Yes, 1.3 seems to be doing fine -- a couple of bugs reported against it but nothing serious so far.(07:57:21 PM) garyo: Greg'sbeenanabsolutemachine,gettingthe2.0python-versionfixersin.(07:57:48PM)garyo:Tonsofchanges;checkthetrunkout.(07:57:49PM)Jason_at_Intel:Ihaveseenalotofpythonbasedupdatecomingfromhim(07:58:23PM)bdbaddog[~bdeegan@adsl-71-131-5-224.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net]enteredtheroom.(07:58:24PM)Jason_at_Intel:SawafewitemsithinkishoulddoinPartsaswellwhenusingpython(07:58:25PM)garyo:How's things with you, Sergey?(07:58:31 PM) garyo: Hi Bill!(07:58:36 PM) bdbaddog: Good evening!(07:59:12 PM) garyo: Greg may or may not join us; I hope Steven will though.(07:59:47 PM) bdbaddog: k.(08:00:04 PM) sgk [~sgk@nat/google/x-iokzizbssmtgctut] entered the room.(08:00:20 PM) garyo: And here'sStevennowIthink.(08:00:21PM)sgk:heyall(08:00:23PM)garyo:HiSteven!(08:00:32PM)Jason_at_Intel:histeve!(08:00:34PM)garyo:Wehaveagoodcrewtonight(08:00:47PM)sgk:unfortunately,i'm still in the office and have a five minute walk to the shuttle today(08:00:58 PM) sgk: so i'llneedanintermissioninabout15minutes(08:01:06PM)sgk:heyJason_at_Intel(08:01:11PM)sgk:sorryI've been so uncommunicative(08:01:24 PM) sgk: not that it'sabighelp,butyou're not the only one... :-/(08:01:25 PM) Jason_at_Intel: no problem.. been busy(08:01:41 PM) garyo: me too(08:01:51 PM) garyo: but at least 1.3 is out & doing well.(08:02:01 PM) sgk: yep, thanks to all of you guys for the work on it(08:02:02 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Alright... i can edit it :-)(08:02:08 PM) bdbaddog: got 1 VC related bug to be patched..(08:02:16 PM) garyo: Shall we get going? I'lldotherecordingthisweek.(08:02:43PM)garyo:bdbaddog:yes,Isawthat.AndoneotherthingtooIthink,ontonight's list.(08:03:17 PM) sgk: sure, let'sdivein(08:04:03PM)garyo:ok,2572then(08:04:16PM)garyo:consensusinvalid.(08:04:23PM)garyo:?(08:04:24PM)sgk:done(08:04:25PM)garyo:ok(08:04:34PM)sgk:hecanreopenifhehasausecase(08:04:48PM)garyo:2576(08:04:50PM)sgk:2576:noprogress,stillonmyplate(08:05:10PM)garyo:ok,continuetodefer.(08:05:15PM)garyo:2577(08:05:24PM)sgk:consensus2.xp3(08:05:30PM)sgk:+subst(08:05:50PM)garyo:ok,makessense.(08:05:56PM)garyo:done.(08:06:03PM)garyo:2578(08:06:18PM)sgk:consensus2.xp3garyo(08:06:21PM)garyo:I'll take this, have Lukas bring his win32 instlaler up to date(08:06:22 PM) sgk: (thnx)(08:06:24 PM) garyo: done.(08:06:38 PM) sgk: 2580(08:06:41 PM) sgk: consensus 2.x p3(08:06:47 PM) garyo: 2.x p3 +Easy?(08:07:01 PM) sgk: should we start trying to assign 2.x issues now that 1.3.0 is out?(08:07:13 PM) sgk: i.e., can we still get away with leaving them unassigned?(08:07:23 PM) sgk: agree w/+Easy(08:07:33 PM) garyo: You'reprobablyright.Otherwisetheywon't get done.(08:07:46 PM) garyo: Volunteers?(08:07:49 PM) sgk: yeah, we'vealreadygotabigbacklogofto-be-assigned2.xissues(08:08:18PM)garyo:Ithinkwehavebeenassigning2.1itemsthough,soatleastweshouldgetthroughthat.(08:08:22PM)sgk:well,nowthati've raised the issue, i'llbacktrackalittleonthis(08:08:37PM)sgk:absentavolunteer,I'm okay leaving it +Easy(08:08:51 PM) garyo: We'llneedtoreprioritizeallthe2.xissuesIthink,oratleastassign&review.(08:09:05PM)garyo:re:+Easy,IthinkeasyonesareOKtonotassignfornow.(08:09:06PM)sgk:right,that'll probably be the first meeting after 2.0 is out(08:09:10 PM) sgk: agree(08:09:38 PM) garyo: done for now then. 2582?(08:10:18 PM) sgk: agree w/p4(08:10:29 PM) Jason_at_Intel: +1(08:10:36 PM) sgk: 3.x? seems like 2.x is full enough(08:10:43 PM) garyo: 3.x p4 unassigned then.(08:11:02 PM) sgk: done(08:11:06 PM) garyo: 2583(08:11:35 PM) sgk: consensus 2.x p4(08:11:50 PM) garyo: how about 3.x p4 instead?(08:11:50 PM) sgk: hmm, let'ssayfortonightit's still okay to leave 2.x unassigned(08:12:03 PM) sgk: ...or i was about to say, how about 3.x p4... :-)(08:12:09 PM) garyo: :-)(08:12:11 PM) sgk: 3.x p4(08:12:21 PM) garyo: all agree? done then.(08:12:26 PM) sgk: if it'snoturgentenoughtoattractavolunteer,3.xisfine(08:12:34PM)garyo:2584:dup1516(08:12:38PM)sgk:(amazinghow3.xdoesn't feel so distant now that 1.3.0 is out)(08:12:43 PM) sgk: 2584: done(08:13:00 PM) sgk: 2585: garyo++(08:13:11 PM) garyo: 2586: regression, 1.3.1(08:13:21 PM) sgk: yep(08:13:34 PM) garyo: I'mlookingathispatchin2595(08:13:59PM)garyo:Steven,Iwanttoaskyouaboutline371inNode/FS.pyatsomepoint,Idon't get that line.(08:14:44 PM) garyo: But for now let'smoveonto2589(08:14:49PM)sgk:okay(08:14:54PM)sgk:wasjustlookingathist2595patch(08:15:10PM)sgk:seemsright,buttreadinglightlyaroundcygwin's case sensitivity is wise(08:15:24 PM) garyo: it all hinges on whether _my_normpath is really working right (hence my q re: line 371)(08:15:42 PM) bdbaddog: there'salsocygwin1.5.xvs1.7.xIthinktherearesomediffswithcasesensitivity(08:15:52PM)bdbaddog:though1.7.xisthe"new"and1.5.xisdeprecated.(08:15:54PM)garyo:IguessIshouldjusttrustthatit's OK or more stuff would be broken.(08:16:23 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: are you talking cygwin versions or python versions?(08:16:30 PM) sgk: gotta cruise to the shuttle, should be back in 5-10 mins.(08:16:32 PM) sgk left the room (quit: Quit: sgk).(08:17:39 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: what do you make of ... if os.path.normcase("TeSt") == os.path.normcase("TeSt") ?(08:18:03 PM) bdbaddog: cygwin versions(08:18:06 PM) garyo: (or anyone else)(08:18:18 PM) garyo: but doesn'tthattestalwayssucceednomatterwhat?(08:18:47PM)garyo:ohwait--Iseeitnow,duh.(08:19:03PM)garyo:one's normcase, the other'snormpath.(08:19:08PM)garyo:nevermind:-/(08:19:25PM)bdbaddog:>>>ifos.path.normcase("TeST")==os.path.normcase("TeST"):(08:19:25PM)bdbaddog:...print"YES"(08:19:25PM)bdbaddog:...(08:19:25PM)bdbaddog:YES(08:19:25PM)bdbaddog:>>>ifos.path.normcase("TeSt")==os.path.normcase("TeSt"):(08:19:25PM)bdbaddog:...print"YES"(08:19:26PM)bdbaddog:...(08:19:26PM)bdbaddog:YES(08:19:27PM)bdbaddog:>>>ifos.path.normcase("TeSt")==os.path.normcase("TeST"):(08:19:27PM)bdbaddog:...print"YES"(08:19:28PM)bdbaddog:...(08:19:52PM)garyo:SonowIthinkhispatchisfine.I'll integrate it for 1.3.1.(08:20:03 PM) bdbaddog: where are we putting those patches?(08:20:34 PM) garyo: I vote for branching 1.3.1 off of 1.3'stagandputtingthingsthere,thenmergingbacktotrunklater.(08:20:59PM)garyo:Thereleaseprocedurewillbealittledifferentfromusualsinceitwon't be on the release branch though.(08:22:20 PM) garyo: seem ok to you all?(08:22:37 PM) Jason_at_Intel: I don'thaveanyissueswithit(08:22:45PM)bdbaddog:what's the path for the 1.3.x and should we make a checkpoint tree for 1.3.x as well?(08:23:33 PM) sgk [~sgk@nat/google/x-xlqjvvxeqxftuvnm] entered the room.(08:23:35 PM) garyo: My opinion is no checkpoints for patch releases. They'resupposedtobesmallandwell-contained.(08:23:40PM)garyo:HiagainSteven.(08:24:04PM)garyo:Steven,areyouOKwithbranching1.3.1offof1.3's tag and putting things there, then merging back to trunk later?(08:24:04 PM) sgk_ [~sgk@67.218.102.54] entered the room.(08:24:20 PM) sgk_: okay, now i'mback(08:24:30PM)garyo:Steven,areyouOKwithbranching1.3.1offof1.3's tag and putting things there, then merging back to trunk later?(08:24:51 PM) garyo: ... and doing the 1.3.1 release right on that branch (not the release branch)?(08:24:54 PM) garyo: ... and no checkpoint?(08:24:55 PM) sgk_: yeah, that sounds like how i'ddoit(08:25:00PM)sgk_:yes(08:25:05PM)garyo:good.(08:25:25PM)garyo:ok,onward(asGregwouldsay).2590(08:25:29PM)sgk_:checkpointandrelease(+trunk)inmymindarecollectivelythemaindevelopment+releaseline(08:25:31PM)bdbaddog:I'm not sure I agree. any numbered release should havea checkpoint right?(08:25:44 PM) sgk_: i'magnosticaboutwhetheryouchoosetocheckpointitfirst(08:25:54PM)sgk_:butthecheckpointwouldcomeoffthe1.3branch(08:26:04PM)bdbaddog:yes.agreed1.3branch(08:26:22PM)garyo:I'm OK w/ that too, checkpoint first.(08:26:23 PM) sgk_: in other words, current "checkpoint" and "release" would be more accurately named "trunk-checkpoint" and "trunk-release"(08:26:29 PM) sgk_: imho(08:26:35 PM) bdbaddog: yes(08:26:53 PM) garyo: I was just trying to take a shortcut I guess -- checkpoint is safer.(08:26:55 PM) sgk_: in general, a checkpoint is probably more correct(08:26:56 PM) bdbaddog: or just delete contents of checkpoint and make checkpoint/trunk checkpoint/1.3.x(08:27:11 PM) sgk_: yeah, safer(08:27:33 PM) sgk_: but i'mokaywithargumentsthatskippingthecheckpointmightbeokayinspecificcircumstances(08:28:02PM)garyo:ok,butnohugehurryinthiscasesockpointisok?(08:28:19PM)bdbaddog:k.soI'll go ahead and delete checkpoint/* and create checkpoint/trunk and checkpoint/1.3.x(08:28:19 PM) sgk left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 260 seconds).(08:28:31 PM) sgk_: right(08:28:31 PM) sgk_ is now known as sgk(08:28:42 PM) sgk: wth?(08:28:46 PM) sgk: am i still on?(08:28:54 PM) garyo: hi, I can see you(08:29:02 PM) sgk: oh, i see, i was sgk_ for a bit there(08:29:26 PM) sgk: it just cut me back to the registered nick(08:29:30 PM) garyo: 2590: I'mworkingwiththeOP,I'll take it until I can mark it invalid :-)(08:29:58 PM) garyo: 2591(08:30:16 PM) garyo: 3.x p4?(08:30:40 PM) bdbaddog: 2.x p4(08:30:59 PM) garyo: ok, 2.x p4s will get pushed to 3.x anyway IMHO :-) :-)(08:31:01 PM) sgk: of doom(08:31:18 PM) sgk: again: gah, beach ball of doom...(08:31:24 PM) sgk: laptop froze up there for a while(08:31:40 PM) bdbaddog: :)(08:31:53 PM) bdbaddog: yeah probably, but if we can do it..(08:31:55 PM) garyo: ok, 2591: 2.x p4(08:32:11 PM) garyo: 2592(08:32:50 PM) garyo: Steven wants 2.x p4, I'llgowiththat(08:32:54PM)bdbaddog:+1(08:33:15PM)Jason_at_Intel:+1(08:33:19PM)garyo:ok,done.(08:33:33PM)garyo:2593(08:34:02PM)sgklefttheroom(quit:Readerror:Connectionresetbypeer).(08:34:34PM)garyo:Steven's got laptop problems.(08:34:36 PM) sgk_ [~sgk@67.218.102.54] entered the room.(08:34:39 PM) bdbaddog: k.(08:34:49 PM) bdbaddog: or googly bus net problemos(08:35:27 PM) garyo: 2593 really wants periodic saving of the .sconsign file, which I like.(08:35:40 PM) bdbaddog: k. 3.0 p4 ?(08:35:41 PM) sgk_ left the room.(08:36:32 PM) garyo: I guess so. If people want it sooner they can vote it up (not that we check the votes that often)(08:36:56 PM) bdbaddog: yup. or if someone gets motivated to implement(08:38:28 PM) garyo: sgk'sgoneagain.Let's say 2593 3.0 p4.(08:38:33 PM) garyo: 2594(08:39:05 PM) garyo: Looks like Steven says research sk, who am I to argue?(08:39:12 PM) bdbaddog: +1(08:39:35 PM) garyo: 2595 is the patch for 2586(08:39:55 PM) garyo: 2596: doc anytime sgk(08:40:22 PM) garyo: 2597 invalid, but Jason says doc could be better(08:40:44 PM) Jason_at_Intel: ya.. a number of people mess this up(08:40:46 PM) sgk [~sgk@67.218.102.54] entered the room.(08:40:48 PM) garyo: Jason: can you suggest some text? Email it to me if you want.(08:41:06 PM) sgk: had to reboot; hopefully i'mreallybacknow(08:41:12PM)garyo:I'm always up for better doc and error handling.(08:41:16 PM) Jason_at_Intel: well I think people read this section in the man page(08:41:42 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Builder calls support a chdir keyword argument that specifies that the Builder'saction(s)shouldbeexecutedafterchangingdirectory.IfthechdirargumentisastringoradirectoryNode,sconswillchangetothespecifieddirectory.IfthechdirisnotastringorNodeandisnon-zero,thensconswillchangetothetargetfile's directory.(08:41:44 PM) Jason_at_Intel: ...(08:41:50 PM) bdbaddog: ANyway to detect chdir and -j and spit out a warning?(08:41:55 PM) Jason_at_Intel: does not say anything about -j(08:42:08 PM) Jason_at_Intel: I like that(08:42:25 PM) Jason_at_Intel: detect -j > 1 and warn is chdir is used(08:42:28 PM) sgk: a warning sounds good(08:42:30 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: that would be even better, but at least we can update the doc easily(08:42:53 PM) garyo: I'llupdatethistickettomentionalltheabove.Steven,canIassignittoyoutoaddthewarning?(08:43:15PM)sgk:sure(08:43:28PM)garyo:ok,2.xp3?sgk(08:43:42PM)sgk:yeah,2.xp3isfine(08:43:46PM)sgk:sowe're up to 2597?(08:44:02 PM) garyo: that'sit.(08:44:08PM)sgk:awesome(08:44:25PM)sgk:anythingsfromwhileiwasawaythatneedmorediscussion?(08:45:03PM)garyo:weassignedyoutheonesyouvolunteeredfor:2594(08:45:11PM)Jason_at_Intel:TheonlyitemihaveithatineedtocatchupwithyouofflinetostartPartreviewstuff(08:45:13PM)garyo:and2596(08:45:53PM)garyo:Jason:Ioweyouawalkthroughofpartstoo.(08:46:05PM)sgk:Jason_at_Intel:soundsgood,asalwaysthebestbetistodriveitforwardedbyschedulingsomething(08:46:08PM)garyo:Whataboutreleaseplanning?1.3.1checkpoint"soon",right?(08:46:26PM)bdbaddog:Sure.dowehaveapathforthe1.3.xbranch?(08:46:40PM)sgk:yeah,bdbaddog,anyoneoweyoufixesoranythingbefore1.3.1?(08:46:46PM)Jason_at_Intel:Canisetupahourortwophoneconferencewithyouguytwo?togetstarted?(08:46:52PM)sgk:likewhatpathintherepository?(08:46:55PM)garyo:Bill:Icancreatethatifyouwant,howaboutbranches/1.3.1?(08:47:05PM)bdbaddog:branches/1.3.x(08:47:07PM)bdbaddog:or1.3(08:47:14PM)sgk:branches/1.3?(08:47:35PM)bdbaddog:sothat'd be the 1.3'sseries"trunk"equivalent?(08:47:43PM)sgk:sure(08:47:49PM)sgk:althoughi'd be okay with branches/1.3.x too(08:47:53 PM) sgk: either one is in the ballpark(08:48:02 PM) garyo: is a branch "for" a release or "from" it? I like 1.3.x better than 1.3.(08:48:30 PM) bdbaddog: branch is for working on, -> checkpoint or -> tags/1.3.1(08:49:16 PM) garyo: Either'sfine,I'm just nitpicking: do you name it based on where it came from (1.3) or where it'sgoing(1.3.x)?(08:49:43PM)sgk:ithinkofitaswhereitcameframe(08:50:01PM)sgk:"trunk"suggeststhattome(thingscomeoffthetrunk)(08:50:01PM)bdbaddog:Ithink1.3asintheseries(08:50:19PM)sgk:camefrom(08:50:24PM)garyo:ok,majorityrules,callitbranches/1.3.(08:51:00PM)garyo:And2.0checkpoint,we're moving toward that, right?(08:51:28 PM) bdbaddog: sure. I think i can wipe out checkpoint/* and create checkpoint/trunk and checkpoint/1.3(08:51:47 PM) bdbaddog: and then is the content in trunk now that we want in the first 2.0 chekcpoint?(08:51:52 PM) garyo: Ah, I see what you mean now.(08:52:18 PM) garyo: As for 2.0 checkpoint, we need to wait for word from Greg, but that should come soon I hope.(08:52:25 PM) sgk: hmm, i just realized i'mnotsure(08:52:45PM)sgk:trunkhaslotsandlotsofgreg's 3.x fixer stuff in it(08:53:01 PM) sgk: i didn'thaveitinmindthat2.0wouldhavethismuchactualcodechange(08:53:09PM)sgk:evenifnoneofthemare(intheory)functionaldifferences(08:53:22PM)sgk:butinpractice,iguessitshouldn't hurt anything(08:53:48 PM) sgk: so it sounds like the near term roadmap is:(08:53:54 PM) sgk: checkpoint for 1.3.1(08:53:58 PM) sgk: 1.3.1(08:54:02 PM) sgk: checkpoint for 2.0(08:54:09 PM) sgk: 2.0(08:54:09 PM) sgk: yes?(08:54:15 PM) bdbaddog: sounds good.(08:54:17 PM) garyo: +1(08:54:33 PM) bdbaddog: once the rleease branch is there, I"ll check in my patch, Garyo, lemme know when you'resisready?(08:54:33PM)sgk:what's needed for 1.3.1 checkpoint?(08:54:33 PM) garyo: (repeat checkpoints as needed of course)(08:54:42 PM) sgk: yes(08:54:51 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: I'llmakethebranchandletyouknow.(08:55:05PM)garyo:sgk:justtwopatchessofar.Bothminor.(08:55:19PM)garyo:Wecouldalsoholditaweekandwaitformore...(08:55:39PM)bdbaddog:theVCone's not so minor. it throws an exception.(08:55:41 PM) sgk: okay, so next action items are: 1) garyo branch; 2) bdbaddog check in; 3) cut checkpoint ?(08:56:05 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: true, if you have Express. sgk: I agree.(08:56:07 PM) sgk: (apologies if I'mbeingpedantic,ijustwanttomakesureiunderstand)(08:56:26PM)garyo:bdbaddog:canyoudothecheckpointrelease?(08:56:36PM)bdbaddog:yup,noproblmeo,soundsgood.yescandorelease(08:56:46PM)garyo:excellent.(08:57:22PM)sgk:awesome.targetdate?(08:57:26PM)garyo:that's all on my list. I'llupdatethebuglistandenterthislogintheusualplace,sinceGreg's not here.(08:57:36 PM) bdbaddog: sounds good.(08:57:51 PM) garyo: I'llmakethebranch&mypatchinthe24hrs.(08:58:04PM)bdbaddog:k.(08:58:53PM)sgk:verygood,manythanks(08:59:00PM)sgk:i'm going to keep the fixer stuff for 2.0 moving forward(08:59:04 PM) sgk: as well as doc updates(08:59:17 PM) garyo: good - I see a few fixers still on the 2.0 list.(08:59:37 PM) bdbaddog: k. I guess float to the release list when its time for a 2.0 checkpoint?(08:59:39 PM) sgk: I'lltrytolandthatissueaboutCommand()notbeingdocumentedinthebuilderlist(09:00:06PM)sgk:iexpandedittoincludedocumentingtheglobalfunctionsandEnvironmentmethodsinthehomebrew.xmlformat(09:00:23PM)sgk:withthesidebenefitofhavingallthoseshowupinauser's guide appendix(09:00:43 PM) garyo: Very nice.(09:00:43 PM) sgk: yeah, I'lltrytokeepeveryonepostedre:2.0(09:01:02PM)Jason_at_Intel:cool(09:01:11PM)bdbaddog:soundsgood.(09:01:39PM)garyo:ok,soundsgreat--byefornow,ifthat's all(09:02:04 PM) bdbaddog: k. l8r all(09:02:10 PM) sgk: one last bit(09:02:18 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Gary: steve: I will catch up with you in e-mail(09:02:19 PM) garyo: Jason: I'llgetyouawriteupfirst,thenlet's do a call.(09:02:19 PM) sgk: here'satreeofthedependenciesforgreg's fixer work:(09:02:20 PM) sgk: http://scons.tigris.org/issues/showdependencytree.cgi?id=2345(09:02:40 PM) Jason_at_Intel: ok(09:02:56 PM) sgk: the guy'sdidsomeheroicworkpreppingforthis(09:03:00PM)Jason_at_Intel:anyETAonthewriteup?(09:03:01PM)sgk:done(09:03:03PM)garyo:cool,lookslikealotofworkhasgoneintothat.(09:03:09PM)garyo:Jason:thisweekendforsure.(09:03:23PM)Jason_at_Intel:oksoundsgreat!(09:03:57PM)Jason_at_Intel:Iwillwaitforthat,andgofromthere(09:03:59PM)sgk:thankseveryone(09:04:23PM)Jason_at_Intel:Tillnexttime!(09:04:29PM)garyo:by4now(09:04:35PM)sgklefttheroom.(09:04:38PM)bdbaddoglefttheroom.(09:04:40PM)Jason_at_Intellefttheroom(quit:Quit:ChatZilla0.9.86[Firefox3.5.3/20090824101458]).